Mandatory Gun Ownership Proposed in Vermont Legislature

[skyvike]

Got this from Torus by e-mail.

Although this story is a few years old and I'm not even sure the guy is still in the Vermont legislature, it's still worth reading....


Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the
right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He
believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the
Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent."

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm
themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least
restrictive laws of any state it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted
in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

Sounds reasonable to me!

Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and
this fee should go to paying for their defense!

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/...egister-nongun

[newmisty]

Fascinating. Makes sense to me.

[GOLDZILLA]

I wonder if they will let felons and schizos go without the fine?

[skyvike]

I wonder if they will let felons and schizos go without the fine?

Oh, good question!

'Cuz we simply MUST protect the CHILDREN from the .0001% of the population who are felons and schizos, even if it means depriving the rest of the population of the basic human right to defend themselves.

[gold miser]

I think its a great idea, out here in the sticks the only time we see the sheriff's dept out here is if they are looking to serve papers. on several occasions they stopped here asking for directions to someones house. with all the technology we have they still have to ask directions.

[GOLDZILLA]

I'm all for voluntary firearms ownership. I think it is just fine to allow people to choose for themselves what they buy or choose not to. Forcing people to buy guns would be an unfunded mandate just like the Obama health care plan forces people to buy insurance, and equally evil in that sense.

As for the "for the kids comment" you got it backwards. I was not trying to justify any control. I was just saying that if a person is legally not allowed to own a firearm because they are known violent offenders or psychotic, they should not have to pay the fine.

[silverblood]

Why should known violent offenders and psychotic people not be allowed to own guns for the purpose of defending themselves? No one actually has the right to forbid it.

[GOLDZILLA]

Why should known violent offenders and psychotic people not be allowed to own guns for the purpose of defending themselves? No one actually has the right to forbid it.

I guess you are right. If the constitution was followed, these people would be already permanently removed from society by due process.

[skyvike]

I'm all for voluntary firearms ownership. I think it is just fine to allow people to choose for themselves what they buy or choose not to. Forcing people to buy guns would be an unfunded mandate just like the Obama health care plan forces people to buy insurance, and equally evil in that sense.

As for the "for the kids comment" you got it backwards. I was not trying to justify any control. I was just saying that if a person is legally not allowed to own a firearm because they are known violent offenders or psychotic, they should not have to pay the fine.

The Constitution doesn't mandate healthcare. It's pretty specific about the Militia, however.

I'm sure the innocent felons and the insane would be exempted from the fine. Legislatures can be pretty thorough about those things. If they forget, even a judge could figure out the right thing.

I just think it's funny the first thing that comes to some folks minds....

No offense intended.....